February 18, 2005

• Canada rocks.
• Beautiful speech. What else is there to say? I voted Conservative last year, but this does a lot to make me regret it.
• First homosexuals want to marry, next someone will want to marry their cousin, after that the lebanese fellows will want to be able to marry multiple wives, an' wait a minute. Multiple wives.... One for each day of the week. Yeah, thats the ticket. Moral of the story They should have the right to exist, but not to have their perversian supproted by the government. If I offended anyone I enjoyed it.
• An American friend of mine once said: "Wow. Canada is like the Google of countries."
• Previous "I'll call a same-sex election!!!" theatrics aside, Paul Martin hit the jackpot on this one. Kudos.
• Dames marryin' dames and fruits marryin' fruits. Ain't that a kick in the head?
• In North Carolina it is already perfectly legal to marry one's cousin. It is only illegal to marry one's double-first cousin. Double-first cousins result when two siblings impregnate another set of siblings. The offspring are double-first cousins. And I don't think that the government should support perversions, either. I would say that the government should not deny rights or benefits conferred by the state to any group of people based on their private behavior.
• Holy shit! It's Frank Sinatra!
• Damn! Just when I was about to write Martin and the Liberal party off as a bunch of corrupt old hacks he goes and does something like this. The man has balls, and a conscience. Good on ya, Paul! The CBC has a good backgrounder site regarding the issue. Thanks for posting this, jb.
• If the bill doesn't pass, I'll be the saddest monkey in all of monkey land. Great speech by Martin, hopefully at least one or two people listen. Sigh.
• Holy shit! It's Frank Sinatra! I'd like to hear Jesus Christ's thoughts.
• Slippery slope arguments are boring.
• Actually, Crackpot, there are already mutterings about a possible followup challenge for bigamy, and incest is likely not that far off, believe it or not. I'm not trolling; this is actually the case. If you follow the harm (and consent) principle, then there should be nothing stopping these other possibilties once you toss out the traditional definition. The whole "definition" argument is a joke. No analogy, the argument was actually *used* with regard to blacks not so long ago.
• That was a fantastic speech, regardless of the side you pick on the debate. What do you come back with after something like that? I'd hate to be writing a speech on the other side of the issue. You ever notice how you don't see Sinatra and Christ together in pictures?
• Must be nice to have a non-moronic head of state. Sigh.
• Actually, Martin is not the Head of State in Canada - check out the monarchy thread below :) I like that he makes it exactly what it is - a Charter of Rights issue. And points out that his critics want him to go against our constitution.
• From the audience, "Who's confused?" Mr. Martin's Response: "You are!" Heh.
• They should have the right to exist, but not to have their perversian supproted by the government. I have no idea where perversia is, but I'm glad to hear their government supprots them.
• I have no idea where perversia is... Just south of Devialand. I was unaware that the lesbian fellows want to be able to marry multiple wives, but then again, I'm not so sure that the world has such an overflowing abundance of love that I should get all hinky about it.
• Lesbians shouldn't be allowed multiple wives. Unless there's warm oil, cameras, and they're all hot. In which case, bring it on!
• Multiple wives are kinda neccessary when lesbian marry. There'll always be atleast two wives in a lesbian marriage.
• My sister-in-law and I were talking about this. Her parents were forbidden by federal and state law to marry. [He's black, she's white.] They married anyway (in Germany or Denmark, I think), raised a family, and eventually became part of a church that would have condemned their marriage and certainly will prohibit marriage to any of their gay grandchildren.
• there are already mutterings about a possible followup challenge for bigamy, and incest is likely not that far off, believe it or not. Rorchach, might you please tell us who these mutterers are, or at least provide a link? "Two consenting adults." Whoever 'they' are, they'll have to get that wording changed. What do you suppose the odds are, hm?
• I was talking about this with a guy who happens to be one of the top civil law experts in Britain (I won't say who, but I'm sure you clever monkeys can work it out from my profile... although please don't say becasuse I don't want him googling his name and finding me putting about his private views on the internet. He is, after all, an expert in civil law!) Anyway, in response to the incest thing, he said this was a non-issue, because one of the normal things the state expects to be a feature of marriage (he had some term for this, I forget it) is sex. If sex between two people is illegal, then the state can't marry them, and there's no grounds for apeal under an equal protection provision. Poligamy is more complicated. Indeed it unterlines a big problem in this whole debate, which is that nobody really agrees on a clear theoretical understanding of what civil marriage is. This is one of the reasons that the homophobes (yes, I'm not afraid to use that term) have been able to so effectively hijack the word 'traditional' to bolster their case. After all, in my tradition, the 'traditional' defenitioin of marriage is a covanent of love between two people, two families, and two communities. Had it not been for the historical, wrong, and now abandoned, hatred of gay people, gay people would have been included in this right from the getgo. So we can't define civil marriage acording to 'tradition' because nobody agrees what it is. We also can't define it according to perversion, as Crackpot suggests, because nobody can agree what 'perversion' is. I think the irrational hatred of one's neighbours based on the fact that you think their sex is kinda icky is 'perverse'. So does that mean I should get to stop homophobes marrying? Clearly not. I suggested, to my lawyerly aquantence, three 'natrual law' principles, or conditions, upon which the state could rest its defenition of civil marriage. They would, in a sense, underly a new defenition of civil marriage as the legal recognition of families created by the human pair-bonding instinct and behaviour. [more to follow]
• In order for the state to recognise a marriage, the parties must satisfy the three follwing conditions: - Consent - Informed understanding (of what they enter into) - Earnest intent (to make a marriage) I think these three conditions are good, because every kind of marriage which makes me think 'of course, that should be allowed' satisfies them, and every kind of marriage that makes me think 'ah, that's kind of dodgey' fails to satisfy one of them. Examples: Gay marriage. Clearly there's consent, there's informed understanding and there's earnest intent. Just like straight marriage. It passes. People marrying their dogs. Animals can't consent to things, nor understand what's happening, nor honesly intend to build a marriage. Fail. Marriages of convenience. Consent, yes, understanding, yes, earnest intent, no. Fail. Incest. A non-issue (as noted above) but, just for the record, consent issues are all muddy and usually impossible to substantiate. Really young people (like young teenagers). Well consent may be there, as may earnest intent, but the parties could be judged too young to know what they're getting into. Fail. And here's the one you've all been waiting for (at least those with the patience read through all this)... Poligamy. All the three conditions are pretty easy to substantiate between two people, but get very difficult with three or more. For example, say A marries B. Then B marries C. A is now inside a marriage with C to which they might not have consented or been properly informed. If the state can guarantee that all parties are truely informed, consenting and earnest, then, honestly, I can't see a problem with poligamy anyway. If, however, these conditions are in doubt, then it should not be allowed. These conditions also confer other advantages. For example, say I marry jb and then kill her for her vast fortune... well her family could then sue me on the basis that I entered into the marriage without earnest intent (in fact, I intended to kill her) and thus have the marriage disolved taking away my claim to her inhearitance. Or let's say that I married jb and found, afterwards, that she was secretly conceiling from me that she was actually a man. I could sue her to disolve the marriage on the basis that she had lied to me and thus robbed me of informed understanding (assuming that I don't want to be married to a man, which I don't). Anyway, sorry this is so long and theoretical. Please argue with me on this: I'd appreciate the ideas being stress-tested.
• Actually, there is a perfectly sound argument from consent as it applies to incest (disregarding even possible issues of harm that may come to offspring from inbreeding). Consent must be freely and fully given - and it is reasonable enough to assume that consent given between unrelated adults is given in such a matter. However, I'm not sure you could make such an argument for people within families, as there are pre-existing power dynamics and obligations. Could you ever be convinced that consent between family members was given freely and fairly, and not through some form of (direct or indirect) coercion? Bigamy, as has been pointed out, is not between two consenting adults. Personally, I'd be in favour of some provision in law for polyamorous groupings, but I'm not expecting that any time soon, and I can see arguments against it. Regardless, there's no logical reason why providing rights for members of the Perversian community must logically also require a whole new form of socio-sexual contract. As was said by many people in response to Santorum's "if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow bestiality" comments: No. You don't. That's what great about writing your own laws, see?
• He is, after all, an expert in civil law I fucked him!!
• Why, that's bigamy! Biga-you? I'm the one with two wives! (bah-dum-tsh) Try the veal. Congrats, Canada, on being rational, if cold.
• Polygamy would certainly be traditional. Rick Mercer, on being traditional (video). (Also see, Denmark. Beautiful, serene and out of control (video), and Who would you like to marry?
• The "traditional definition" of marriage--at least the biblical one, which is what the opponents always want to quote--IS polygamy. Remember Jacob having to marry his wife's sister before he could marry his wife? (??) So anyway, if you want to mix your bible with your marriage laws, that's where you start, in the OT. As I recall, JC wasn't particularly bothered.
• Cheers, Canada!
• They should have the right to exist, but not to have their perversian supproted ....zat u Nostril?
• Hey Dreadnought that sounds like pretty good criteria to me. ...I could only think of one flaw. It wouldn't stop me from marrying myself. That wouldn't be bigamy, it would be small-o-me.
• While most people tend to see this as a moral issue, I can't help but think that, at it's core, it's a legal issue. Heterosexual marriages are, at their root, legal contracts that provide the participants with certain benefits, primarily with regard to transfer of property, taxation, and the extension of insurance coverage. Since enacting an otherwise legal contract with another person is not in itself an illegal act, I can't see that prohibiting a class of people from enacting legal contracts with each other can be constitutionally justified, regardless of how popular it might be to do so. If any can do it, all can do it, and morality has nothing to do with it. What needs to be clarified is the exact legal benefits that accrue to heterosexuals by getting married, and ensuring that homosexuals can enact contracts that acquire those benefits as well. I *think* this was the heart of the civil union movement (and for the life of me I can't understand why either side would get so hung up on the term "marriage" but whatever), and in my (non-lawyer) opinion, this would be the point of the spear when the state bans on honosexual marriage are challenged in court.
• "It's a legal matter, baby... A legal matter from now on..." /The Who
• Upon review: dreadnought's tripartite test seems very sound, and I agree with him on the issue of poligamy: if everyone involved has the ability to consent and subsequently does so, I don't see how this is a problem. Interesting side effect: this could result in the creation of "line families" as posited by Heinlein ("Friday") and Haldeman ("Worlds").
• Sorry, but I'm not going to applaud Paul Martin on this one. Don't get me wrong -- I agree with what he said entirely, but it's shallow and opportunistic of him to pose as a man of principle. For all the debate here in Canada, there's a real lack of recognition that same-sex marriage is a done deal. The bill before Parliament is irrelevant to deciding the issue. The issue has ALREADY been decided. The courts have declared that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination, like the ones already enumerated in the Charter. It was once that original declaration was made that same-sex marriage became an inevitability, the same way that gay adoption rights also became inevitable. All that needed to be shown was that the government was denying a service (marriage) to someone contrary to a prohibited ground of discrimination (and without some policy factor redeeming that discrimination). The fight against gay-marriage was lost a long time ago. It's done. It's here. Whatever Parliament decides now is irrelevant -- as long as someone can show that the government denied them some service on the basis of their sexual orientation, whatever law Parliament decides which runs counter to that will be struck down. Given that the same-sex marriage fight is long over, I find it entirely repulsive that Martin is grandstanding as the big supporter of minority rights. The fight is over, it's done -- I give Martin no credit for saying that he supports what's already HERE. He gets no more points for saying he supports gay marriage than he does for supporting the sky being blue. As long as gays are being denied something purely on the basis of their being gay, they will challenge the law and win. If same-sex partners are given civil unions but not marriage, that law will be struck down. If civil servants are given the opportunity to opt out of performing or assisting same-sex marriages, that law will be struck down. It just comes down to how much money and time everyone wants to spend before acknowledging what's already in place. But it is a beautiful speech -- no doubt about that. It's easy to be a man of principle when it doesn't cost you anything. Sorry, but Paul Martin is still a total dud in my book -- especially seeing that he voted against gay marriage the last time around. How protective was he of minority rights then? I'll stop ranting now. Sorry.
• Paul Martin has a habit of making himself the centre of most important Canadian debates. At a recent international summit he called for a new UN-like organization to combat terror instead of the US's heavy hand. Or something like that. On the one hand I do applaud him for saying things like this and actually picking a side to an argument and fighting for it, and not hiding behind the "let's make everyone happy and say nothing" tactic. He's a blowhard but he's not completely psycho, which is refreshing. The outcome of this bill, despite the fact that the courts have already solved the problem, is still important as it realigns the government to its own charter and finally seals the deal on gay marriage. It also tests Alberta's promise to pull out the famed notwithstanding clause... will Klein have the balls to do it during his last term?
• Capt. Renault, you are correct that the courts have already validated gay marriage, but by doing that they have declared that current federal legislation is in violation of the Charter. This gives parliament two options: either rewrite the law to be in line with the Charter, or envoke the 'notwithstanding' clause to keep the law as it is. It's that choice that has parliament taking sides today...and it's a very real issue.
• there are already mutterings about a possible followup challenge for bigamy, and incest is likely not that far off, believe it or not. Rorchach, might you please tell us who these mutterers are, or at least provide a link? Google, Bountiful BC. In the early 90's two women from Bountiful went to the police and wanted to lay charges of bigamy it was taken to the higher levels of government since the police weren't sure how to handle the case. The Attorney General of BC wanted to lay charges against 2 men from Bountiful (the Federal Government said they would back them up in court). The Crown Prosecutor on the other hand refused to lay charges after receiving two independent legal reviews of the case. The reason? They didn't want this to become a test case for a charter challenge which they feared would ultimately lead to the legalization of polygamy/bigamy because the men are from a branch of the Mormon church and would be protected under the Charter for religious reasons. Really young people (like young teenagers). Well consent may be there, as may earnest intent, but the parties could be judged too young to know what they're getting into. Fail. Would actually get a pass since permission from the parent/guardian can be obtained in that case, which is done currently.
• Capt Renault, you might want to take a look at what happened in the States before being too dismissive of the enthusiasm for Martin. Because gay marriage was a done deal there, too, in some states, until senior politicians rallied around banning it, amending State and Federal Constitutions to ban it, ban civil unions, and in some cases, ban private legal contracts that provide agreements that could look like aspects of marriage. Martin has chosen to support the right side, and that's worth applauding. Martin was eloquent, and has ensured that any debate in Canada is framed firmly about rights, not about gay-hatred, or religious suprememcy, as is the case for your southern neighbour. And that's worth applauding even more. Finally, many outside Canada can only wish their own politicians could rise above playing the percentages of pandering to hate on this issue with - at best - mealy-mouthed equivocation, and - at worst - endorsement of that hate for a ballot of votes, surely the modern 30 pieces of silver. OK, that's enough serious. Back to imagining the harem of well-oiled lesbians.
• rocket88 -- there's a third option, which is to do nothing. If Parliament doesn't act, the current laws are adjusted by the courts to accommodate the inclusion of same-sex couples. Seeing as how we're all going to wind up at exactly this same point again, I don't see the need for Parliament to act at all. Seven of ten provinces have recognized it, and should an actual case come before the Supreme Court (rather than a mere reference), it's clear how things will end up, given what the existing jurisprudence already says. And as for applauding Martin for being on the right side -- I won't do it. Bowing to the inevitable isn't something that's praiseworthy, just sensible. And given his voting record on the same issue not all that long ago, I can't see that it's really a matter of principle to him. Maybe I'm just irked to see him wrapping himself in Trudeau's Charter, knowing what his health-care and equalization payment deals will do to unravel Canadian federalism. But that's just me.
• Beeza, I don't understand how that could have been a test case. Were the women bringing charges against their husband(s) because they unknowingly had entered into multiple partner marriages, or were they trying to make a case for that situation? In the US, I think legalizing polygamy (particularly in the case of Mormons) would constitute special privileges for a religious minority, and there would be ample arguments against it. It would also mean a new definition of marriage, and I can't imagine the 'two consenting adults' definition going down without a huge fight. BTW, great points, Dreadnought.
• I was thinking about Bountiful, too (CBC's Fifth Estate did a piece on Bountiful), and it actually makes me wish bigamy were legal. Because then they could do something about the abuse already occurring there. As things currently stand, the government isn't interfeering with the marrying off of girls under 16, partly because they aren't legally married (being second + wives) - the most they could be charged with would be sleeping with a girl too young. It goes on, illegal or not. But if polygamy were legal, the authorities could at least insist that they fulfil the same requirements as anyone else - in Ontario, that means no one married before they are 16, even with parents' permission. Moreover, I think (to go with Dreadnought's idea) that not only parental permission, but proof on individual consent should be required to be demonstrated, along with informed understanding and earnestness. That said, polygamy opens up all sorts of practical problems re social security, etc, which may be insurmountable.
• [of the marriage of young people] Would actually get a pass since permission from the parent/guardian can be obtained in that case, which is done currently. That's right, and parents' knowledge and wisdom would add that angle of informed understanding. Status quo still works.
• That said, polygamy opens up all sorts of practical problems re social security, etc, which may be insurmountable. I don't think those problems would be insurmountable. I do, however, think it would be very, very difficult to show that poligamy would be consistent with my three proposed conditions.
• Canada's first gay marriage may have been as early as 1974, as noted in this more personal speech from Bill Siksay, member for Burnaby—Douglas, NDP. I wonder if their marriage will be retroactively acknowledged, since the bans were called?
• ("their" referring to Chris Vogel and Richard North, of course.)
• I'm not sure if they wanted to lay charges against their husbands or lay charges against the men of the community. In any case ... If charges were laid and there was a court ruling, the men could appeal the decision to a higher court. They could argue in their appeal that their religion allows for polygamy, the lower court was wrong to rule as they did and their religious rights were violated under the Charter. There is historical evidence to support their claim. The law against polygamy was made well before we had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was made in reaction to these polygamous groups - it was an attempt to stop the practise. From what I remember of the history of polygamy in the Mormon church was it was banned by the church at the end of the 1800's with the exception of those who were practising it at the time. Part of the congregation splintered off over the issue of polygamy, the group in Bountiful is part of that original splinter group from the USA. Part of the problem is they aren't officially practising bigamy - legally married to two (or more) women at once in the eyes of the law, in their case the second (or third or fourth) wives are "celestial" marriages in the eyes of their religion and ordained by heaven. How do you argue against something that is ordained by heaven? If the government does nothing then it allows the law to stand (up to 5 years in jail for polygamy) and avoids all the social issues in making polygamy legal. In their case I would argue against allowing polygamy, they treat women as property to be passed from one man to the next ... ick. There are a bunch of things that don't sit well with me and these polygamous groups that splintered off from the original Mormon church. I don't understand why the other issues: lack of education, teaching racism in school, incest, trafficking in females across the border - aren't being dealt with separately through various laws, they should be. For some reason they get a free pass on all their behaviour even though organizations like BC Civil Liberties have been demanding action.
• I don't want ANYBODY forcing me to marry gay!
• Beeza, thanks for the background info on Bountiful. I've never heard about this splinter Mormon group before, and they sound like they have some serious problems far beyond the polygamy issue. They may be worth a FFP of their own...
• I don't want ANYBODY forcing me to marry gay! Oh, I agree. Gay has no taste in hats, and she snores like a bandsaw. That's why I'm marrying jb. It has nothing to do with her vast fortune. Honest.
• That's why I'm marrying jb. How long until the blessed event transpires? And extra good luck on it, it's a top thing to do if that's how you feel about it. It looks suspiciously like proof of love.
• Oops, I kind of thought jb would have mentioned it here before. I agree, it does look suspiciously like love, doesn't it? Investigations are been carried out as we speak. We're getting married on July 10, in Toronto, Canada, only a few minutes walk from the church where the first legally recognised gay marriage in North America took place. Even though we're not a same-sex couple, we're proud that we will (hopefully) be getting married in a country where all people will have the same right.
• At the same time, though we are opposite sex, I really wish Dreadnought were wearing the dress, and dealing with all the bridal crap. He likes it.
• Nah, the dress wouldn't go well with the hat.
• w00t! Oh yay, our own Monkey wedding! Many congratulations, jb, Dreadnought. I would blow party tooters, but I suspect he's still somewhere around*
• Thanks! We'll make sure to post pictures.
• You better. (You could shift it back a couple of weeks, to my birthday...)
• Will there be free buffet? I'm not asking out of malicious to freeload. Honest.
• ... malicious intent to freeload ... which I absolutely don't have
• The date was set to give us as long as possible after the wedding, to have a honeymoon and still have time to get some research in (if I do research, I get to honeymoon in Europe!), before I may have to return to teach in the States (I am waiting to see if I have research money, or need to do another TAship). Actually, a few weeks later would hit my birthday (22), which would just be weird. I want the occasions separate in my mind.
• Feh, marriage! Don't give in to the patriarchy! Live in sin! Rents are cheaper there! Blessings be upon your house
• Tracicle, you're a June baby too? Gee, we must be only days apart in age!
• Nah, the other way -- late July. Five days after jb, in fact. #2 is the 16th; he's 11 days older than me. :)
• Same-sex legislation passed
• Hooray for Canada! I'd feel a great surge of patriotic pride, had the whole process not been poisened by the excerable anti-human rights agitation of the Conservatives and the lack of a general outcry caused thereby.
• I don't know how many people read the wiki, but if anyone wanted to see pictures from our wedding, they are here.
• I love them and you guys look fantastic, and I especially adore the choice of poem. Congratulations!
• Happy days to ye both, jb and Dreadnought!
• Beautiful! Congratulations!
• Never thought I'd tear up over on-line wedding photos, but these, with the text, are so beautiful! Blessings, best of everything, congratulations to whom ever it's manners to congratulate, best wishes to the other, may you always feel the same joy, even when marriage is at its most mundane.